By Hooshang
Amirahmadi
As the US
Department of State is contemplating whether to remove the Iranian Islamic
Mujahedin-e Khalq group (MEK) from its terrorist list, a debate is taking place
among pundits with some arguing for the removal and some for the status quo. The
MEK has already been taken off the terrorist list of the EU, and in the US the
group is being treated as if it is not listed.
Opponents of
delisting rightly remind us that the MEK has been involved in acts of violence
against Americans, Iranians and their own members, and that the group is a
cult-like and anti-democratic force. Founding members of the MEK murdered
several Americans in Iran in 1970s, and the group actively supported taking
Americans hostage in Tehran in 1980.
The MEK
supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in 1980. That "long war," when Iraq
also used chemical weapons, left some 500,000 Iranians dead and maimed,
destroyed about 120 Iranian cities and towns, and caused close to $120 billion
in economic loss. The MEK also helped Saddam Hussein to suppress the Kurdish
rebellion in 1991 following the first US war with Iraq.
It is no
wonder that the MEK is despised in both the US and Iran. It is a terrorist group
to the Americans, a "Monafegh" (hypocritically Muslim) group to the Islamic
Republic, and a "khaen" (traitor) group to most Iranians. Even MEK's past
members have charged that it forbids internal democracy and treats members
critical of the group's activities quite savagely.
While the
MEK is building support among western officials, it is still censured by most
Iranians. This was not the case in its formative years in 1970s when the
guerilla group was a hero to young Iranians contesting dictatorship of the Shah
and American domination. The original MEK included Islamists and Marxists;
before long they split violently and the Islamists took over.
The tragic
conversion from a loyalist to a traitor group began in 1979 when the MEK parted
with the Islamic Republic, murdered state officials, including a president and a
prime minister, and joined Saddam Hussein. Ever since those early blows, a
tragically vicious cycle of violence has continued between the Islamic Republic
and the MEK, resulting in several thousand deaths.
Opponents of
delisting rightly suspect that the group may never become democratic or even
pragmatic. However, it is ridiculous to assert, as they do, that removing the
MEK from the US terrorist list will strengthen the Islamic regime, demoralize
the Iranian reformers, threaten the freedom of Iranian-Americans, and give the
MEK the power to impose a US war on Iran.
First,
Iran's "rising" power and reformers' adversity occurred while the MEK was on the
terrorist list. Second, a delisted MEK could hardly bully Iranian-Americans in a
democratic America. Finally, the US' Iran policy is designed to avoid war while
intensifying "targeted sanctions." Short of an accident, failure of sanctions
can be used to justify a war - a la Iraq.
Not all
opposed to delisting are genuinely concerned about its upshot; some are moved by
sheer self-interest - anti-Iran activism is a business. These people use MEK as
a facade to conceal their own deleterious acts, e.g., supporting sanctions and
calling for the surveillance of Iranian scientists.
Delisting will expose these foul-crying groups who deceptively single out the
MEK as the only wicked force.
Enemies of
the Islamic Republic have often used the MEK as a bogyman even if the group has
been a failure. To them, delisting will mean public funds and more power. More
money sure, but delisting will weaken the MEK as it becomes one among many
contesting opposition groups. The Islamic regime will publically scorn the US,
accusing it of hypocrisy in fighting terrorism; privately, however, Tehran will
welcome delisting as it pacifies the MEK.
Delisting
the MEK might indeed be a step in the right direction. Iranian patriotism has
suffered for the fact that a group among them has been on the terrorist list of
the US, a nation which many of them cherish. The MEK in the past was the most
anti-American of all Iranian groups. US delisting the MEK is then a step toward
normalizing relations between Americans and Iranians.
The Iranian
people will welcome any moderating influence on the MEK, which has been a source
of extremism, violence and fear in a nation that is longing for peace and
reconciliation. A delisted MEK will have to transform itself from a paramilitary
into a political group. If this were to happen, the Iranians would be relieved
and Iran's vilified image will be somewhat rectified.
By delisting
the MEK the US will lose a useless bogyman, but gain a redundant anti-Iran
propaganda machine. This can cost America tax dollars, image and a better Iran
policy unless the delisted MEK is put on a tight leash. This control must begin
by demilitarizing the MEK, which along with delisting helps resolve the
humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf in Iraq where some 3400 reside including
children.
Delisting
will make the US look hypocritical for supporting human rights in Iran given the
MEK's dreadful human rights record. Yet, delisting can advance US-Iran relations
and Iranian reconciliation - the musts for democracy in Iran. To strike such
moral victory, the US must also renounce regime change and use of force while
incrementally lifting sanctions and easing Iran's security concerns. In return,
Iran must gradually address American/IAEA's nuclear concerns.
The ball is
in the US court of goodwill.
About the
author: Hooshang
Amirahmadi is a Professor at Rutgers University and President of the American
Iranian Council.
hooshang@amirahmadi.com
;
www.amirahmasdi.com
... Payvand News - 08/19/11 ... --